Turns out the FCC was right: AT&T would expand LTE service without T-Mobile.

Last year, when AT&T was in the throes of trying to convince federal regulators that its proposed deal to acquire T-Mobile should go through, company executives repeatedly cited the fact that they didn’t have enough spectrum to begin with and needed their smaller competitor’s resources.

On Wednesday, AT&T changed its tune, saying that it would have complete LTE coverage nationwide by 2014, largely driven by its purchases earlier this year of of the 2.3GHz WCS band. Those earlier claims appear now to have been proven to be wrong at best and disingenuous at worst.

"AT&T may have believed that the T-Mobile merger was the best, fastest way to get to a full LTE build, but it’s certainly disingenuous of them to claim that it was the only way for them to get there," said Joshua King, who was an AT&T Wireless vice president from 2000 to 2005 and is now a VP at Avvo, in an interview with Ars. "I wouldn’t call it ‘outright false,’ but I certainly believe they overplayed their hand in a way that was counter-productive."

Back in May 2011, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that his company did not own adequate spectrum, particularly in sparsely-populated parts of the country. Sen. Michael Lee (R-UT) put the question directly to Stephenson, asking, "If you were unable to acquire T-Mobile what would your options be as far as developing your 4G LTE network?"

Stephenson replied, "It's a long-term solution. Most of the rural communities that we're speaking to, we would not have the spectrum depth to do the conversion that we need. So, this is one of the big determinants as to whether if we can get to a lot of the rural communities with our LTE build. We need spectrum in those communities. In this classic case, [T-Mobile has] a very nice footprint in West Virginia. We don't have enough spectrum to launch in in West Virginia."

FCC didn't buy it

Later on in 2011, when the FCC killed the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, one of its reasons was because it didn’t believe AT&T’s own analysis that it wouldn’t build out LTE if it didn’t get T-Mobile.

"The staff additionally identifies internal AT&T documents and consistent historical practices that contradict AT&T's claim that merging with T-Mobile is essential for AT&T to build out its LTE network to 97 percent of all Americans," the FCC Bureau Order stated (PDF).

AT&T, of course, fired back days later, writing on a corporate blog that the FCC’s conclusion was totally flawed and "obviously one-sided."

"To argue this, the [FCC staff report] apparently assumes a high enough level of competition exists in rural areas to compel billions of dollars in investment," wrote Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External & Legislative Affairs. "Yet the report elsewhere argues that the level of wireless competition in more populated areas of America is so fragile that the merger must be disallowed. At the very least, these conclusions show a logical inconsistency."

AT&T wants spectrum, now!

In 2012, AT&T has been very busy getting more and more spectrum with the express purpose of building out its LTE capacity, and the company now claims that it's these new deals that will allow it to be more competitive. In March, the company announced an expansion of LTE service across the country. By August, the company acquired WCS spectrum to the tune of $600 million, a move which was approved by the FCC in September.

"I don’t want to say they are panicked, but [AT&T is] looking at everything at this point," said Weston Henderek, an analyst with Current Analysis, told Bloomberg just last month. "Now they are trying to gobble up as much spectrum as they can and they are going at it more aggressively than they have in the past."

As recently as yesterday, AT&T continued to make statements that it is newly confident in its ability to acquire spectrum and deploy LTE service.

"Even under ideal circumstances, getting new spectrum on the market in the next five to seven years is aggressive," John Stankey, the company’s chief strategy officer, said on a call with investors and analysts on Wednesday. "But what we do know is that AT&T is well-positioned now."

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

I'm confused by all these (attempted) spectrum purchases. My Pre 2 has an AT&T-compatible radio in it. If I stick a T-Mobile SIM in it, my phone will function, but its utility will be limited (EDGE speeds, rather than 3G). That being the case, how would owning T-Mobile's spectrum help AT&T expand its network?

And did they REALLY claim T-Mobile would be of particular benefit in rural areas? In upstate NY, T-Mobile doesn't do you much good if you stray too far from the Interstates.

AT&T is still in need of spectrum to keep up with Verizon. Verizon has their nationwide 10+10 700MHz band for LTE, and then a near-nationwide band of 10+10 or 20+20 in AWS-1. AT&T has about 85% (on a population basis) covered in 10+10 in the 700MHz band (once Verizon sells them all those B block assets), and will likely have the entire country in WCS 2.3Ghz spectrum (10+10). Though WCS is going to be used in urban cores (microcells, metrocells) more than rural LTE deployments. So they still face a spectrum deficit in exurban and rural areas where density is really low.

One thing AT&T has that Verizon doesn't is significant downlink-only spectrum. AT&T has 5MHz nationwide, and 10MHz in CA and the tri-state area (NY/NJ/CT) in the 700MHz band, and another 2 5MHz sections in WCS. If AT&T can get carrier aggregation going where it can use that non-adjacent downlink-only spectrum to boost downloads it would give them some breathing room until 2017 or so. Verizon is also set on spectrum until about 2017. Sprint will be set on spectrum if they can get the PCS "H" block to build a full 10+10 LTE network in the PCS band as well as whatever they can get from Clearwire for urban deployments.

The only auction coming up is the 600MHz TV incentive auctions. There is also a possibility of an AWS-3 band (extending the current AWS-1 up 25MHz, so 50Mhz total) but that depends on sharing spectrum with the federal government - T-Mobile is championing this effort (and would likely use any spectrum it receives from this for even more LTE). I can see AT&T buying some 600Mhz spectrum if possible (especially if they can get a national license like Verizon did for 700MHz), and T-Mobile will likely try to get some too since they don't have any sub 1-GHz spectrum - the future of a strong carrier is a balance of 3 types of spectrum: below 1GHz (range), 1Ghz to 2.2GHz (capacity) and 2.3GHz+ (urban core overlay).

That said, data growth is slowing on a per-device basis. The total smartphone install base will continue to grow, but we're not seeing the exponential growth of more devices and higher per-device consumption - mostly due to the effects of data caps changing users behavior. But the real question I have is how many more devices will we have? "The Internet of things" has been talked about for a long time now, but will it finally arrive in this decade? Will we have 300M people and 600M "things" connected to the internet via the cellular network here in the US by 2020? AT&T and Verizon say they're working on LTE connected cars, but to consumers, until they provide a compelling reason to offer it in the car (above and beyond what using a cell phone could do) then I don't think consumers will care and wont opt for it.

I'm not sure this is what they should focus on. I have AT&T service on my iPhone 4S. I live in Atlanta, about a mile away from the AT&T headquarters down here, in the heart of Midtown. I'm pretty much "in" the city.

I also live on the 19th floor of a highrise.

Even on the balcony, I get at most 2 bars.

Frustrating.

And when there are any kind of festivals where more than a hundred people gather in a somewhat close location, say bye-bye to your signal.

When you're legally beholden to shareholders and only the bottom line matters, you'll say and do anything to hit the mark on projections. Fantastic little system that we've built for ourselves, isn't it?

The system is not bad in itself. We can blame Big Business, but we have the power to make them do what we want by hitting their bottom line. If we continue to go for the cheapest product/service without asking how and why it is that way, or trying to understand what goes into it, we set ourselves up.If there was a mobile operator with ethical practices, providing good customer service, but perhaps a little less coverage or a little more expensive, would it have enough customers to survive?The same people who flock to Walmart while complaining that US jobs have been exported to China would drop this operator and rush to AT&T to save a few bucks and then complain about their terrible business practices.In a democracy, we get the government that we deserve. The free works the same way, we get to vote everyday with our money, so we get the products and services that we deserve.

AT&T is still in need of spectrum to keep up with Verizon. Verizon has their nationwide 10+10 700MHz band for LTE, and then a near-nationwide band of 10+10 or 20+20 in AWS-1. AT&T has about 85% (on a population basis) covered in 10+10 in the 700MHz band (once Verizon sells them all those B block assets), and will likely have the entire country in WCS 2.3Ghz spectrum (10+10). Though WCS is going to be used in urban cores (microcells, metrocells) more than rural LTE deployments. So they still face a spectrum deficit in exurban and rural areas where density is really low.

One thing AT&T has that Verizon doesn't is significant downlink-only spectrum. AT&T has 5MHz nationwide, and 10MHz in CA and the tri-state area (NY/NJ/CT) in the 700MHz band, and another 2 5MHz sections in WCS. If AT&T can get carrier aggregation going where it can use that non-adjacent downlink-only spectrum to boost downloads it would give them some breathing room until 2017 or so. Verizon is also set on spectrum until about 2017. Sprint will be set on spectrum if they can get the PCS "H" block to build a full 10+10 LTE network in the PCS band as well as whatever they can get from Clearwire for urban deployments.

The only auction coming up is the 600MHz TV incentive auctions. There is also a possibility of an AWS-3 band (extending the current AWS-1 up 25MHz, so 50Mhz total) but that depends on sharing spectrum with the federal government - T-Mobile is championing this effort (and would likely use any spectrum it receives from this for even more LTE). I can see AT&T buying some 600Mhz spectrum if possible (especially if they can get a national license like Verizon did for 700MHz), and T-Mobile will likely try to get some too since they don't have any sub 1-GHz spectrum - the future of a strong carrier is a balance of 3 types of spectrum: below 1GHz (range), 1Ghz to 2.2GHz (capacity) and 2.3GHz+ (urban core overlay).

That said, data growth is slowing on a per-device basis. The total smartphone install base will continue to grow, but we're not seeing the exponential growth of more devices and higher per-device consumption - mostly due to the effects of data caps changing users behavior. But the real question I have is how many more devices will we have? "The Internet of things" has been talked about for a long time now, but will it finally arrive in this decade? Will we have 300M people and 600M "things" connected to the internet via the cellular network here in the US by 2020? AT&T and Verizon say they're working on LTE connected cars, but to consumers, until they provide a compelling reason to offer it in the car (above and beyond what using a cell phone could do) then I don't think consumers will care and wont opt for it.

AT&T is still in need of spectrum to keep up with Verizon. Verizon has their nationwide 10+10 700MHz band for LTE, and then a near-nationwide band of 10+10 or 20+20 in AWS-1. AT&T has about 85% (on a population basis) covered in 10+10 in the 700MHz band (once Verizon sells them all those B block assets), and will likely have the entire country in WCS 2.3Ghz spectrum (10+10). Though WCS is going to be used in urban cores (microcells, metrocells) more than rural LTE deployments. So they still face a spectrum deficit in exurban and rural areas where density is really low.

One thing AT&T has that Verizon doesn't is significant downlink-only spectrum. AT&T has 5MHz nationwide, and 10MHz in CA and the tri-state area (NY/NJ/CT) in the 700MHz band, and another 2 5MHz sections in WCS. If AT&T can get carrier aggregation going where it can use that non-adjacent downlink-only spectrum to boost downloads it would give them some breathing room until 2017 or so. Verizon is also set on spectrum until about 2017. Sprint will be set on spectrum if they can get the PCS "H" block to build a full 10+10 LTE network in the PCS band as well as whatever they can get from Clearwire for urban deployments.

The only auction coming up is the 600MHz TV incentive auctions. There is also a possibility of an AWS-3 band (extending the current AWS-1 up 25MHz, so 50Mhz total) but that depends on sharing spectrum with the federal government - T-Mobile is championing this effort (and would likely use any spectrum it receives from this for even more LTE). I can see AT&T buying some 600Mhz spectrum if possible (especially if they can get a national license like Verizon did for 700MHz), and T-Mobile will likely try to get some too since they don't have any sub 1-GHz spectrum - the future of a strong carrier is a balance of 3 types of spectrum: below 1GHz (range), 1Ghz to 2.2GHz (capacity) and 2.3GHz+ (urban core overlay).

That said, data growth is slowing on a per-device basis. The total smartphone install base will continue to grow, but we're not seeing the exponential growth of more devices and higher per-device consumption - mostly due to the effects of data caps changing users behavior. But the real question I have is how many more devices will we have? "The Internet of things" has been talked about for a long time now, but will it finally arrive in this decade? Will we have 300M people and 600M "things" connected to the internet via the cellular network here in the US by 2020? AT&T and Verizon say they're working on LTE connected cars, but to consumers, until they provide a compelling reason to offer it in the car (above and beyond what using a cell phone could do) then I don't think consumers will care and wont opt for it.

Free markets work when competition is widespread and aggressive. its a joke to think there's any competition in the national cellular internet business.

Monopolists drive the 80 year telcom business, and threatening America goes with being *too big to fail* *too big to be 'messed with*. and so on.

The sad part is, our telcom infrastructure is a strategic national resource, and its being mismanaged, lied about, hidden and spied upon.

Its totally spooky to think we live in a country where a business can exist, that still reflects the asinine cronyism, arrogant ignorance of the deeply socially maladjusted of a money-first, all else later mentality.

If 50 million users could switch their iPhone to a nationalized, public network run by the National Science Foundation, at present, they would. The technology today, the possible speeds, the unfettered use, the transparency, the information and science from a national network would again, launch the next generation Internet, along with all the profits and economic benefits of the first launch.

Let's face it, privatizing *and* creating a monopoly from the Internet is a *failed national experiment*, and a continuing embarrassment of lies to the *public*, beyond the opaque, high cost, low speeds, and ridiculous restrictions today. And *it is a national economic and security risk* as it exists today.

Remember when the FCC renewed licensees to Television spectrum periodically, based on consumer's comments? The same process should be implemented to manage the public spectrum leased to ATT and Others.

AT&T is still in need of spectrum to keep up with Verizon. Verizon has their nationwide 10+10 700MHz band for LTE, and then a near-nationwide band of 10+10 or 20+20 in AWS-1. AT&T has about 85% (on a population basis) covered in 10+10 in the 700MHz band (once Verizon sells them all those B block assets), and will likely have the entire country in WCS 2.3Ghz spectrum (10+10). Though WCS is going to be used in urban cores (microcells, metrocells) more than rural LTE deployments. So they still face a spectrum deficit in exurban and rural areas where density is really low.

One thing AT&T has that Verizon doesn't is significant downlink-only spectrum. AT&T has 5MHz nationwide, and 10MHz in CA and the tri-state area (NY/NJ/CT) in the 700MHz band, and another 2 5MHz sections in WCS. If AT&T can get carrier aggregation going where it can use that non-adjacent downlink-only spectrum to boost downloads it would give them some breathing room until 2017 or so. Verizon is also set on spectrum until about 2017. Sprint will be set on spectrum if they can get the PCS "H" block to build a full 10+10 LTE network in the PCS band as well as whatever they can get from Clearwire for urban deployments.

The only auction coming up is the 600MHz TV incentive auctions. There is also a possibility of an AWS-3 band (extending the current AWS-1 up 25MHz, so 50Mhz total) but that depends on sharing spectrum with the federal government - T-Mobile is championing this effort (and would likely use any spectrum it receives from this for even more LTE). I can see AT&T buying some 600Mhz spectrum if possible (especially if they can get a national license like Verizon did for 700MHz), and T-Mobile will likely try to get some too since they don't have any sub 1-GHz spectrum - the future of a strong carrier is a balance of 3 types of spectrum: below 1GHz (range), 1Ghz to 2.2GHz (capacity) and 2.3GHz+ (urban core overlay).

That said, data growth is slowing on a per-device basis. The total smartphone install base will continue to grow, but we're not seeing the exponential growth of more devices and higher per-device consumption - mostly due to the effects of data caps changing users behavior. But the real question I have is how many more devices will we have? "The Internet of things" has been talked about for a long time now, but will it finally arrive in this decade? Will we have 300M people and 600M "things" connected to the internet via the cellular network here in the US by 2020? AT&T and Verizon say they're working on LTE connected cars, but to consumers, until they provide a compelling reason to offer it in the car (above and beyond what using a cell phone could do) then I don't think consumers will care and wont opt for it.

These people don't think in terms of truth or lie. Right or wrong. They will say anything, do everything and anything for profit and for personal gain, as long as they are confident they can get away with it. Lie? Cheat? Steal (without any evidence to prove it, of course)? No problem. Break a law that will probably not get them prosecuted? No problem!

They don't care as long as it makes them money and they don't get in too much trouble with the law, even if they broke the law.

This is why regulation is essential, and documentation and procedures such as S-O are needed in order to have a paper trail showing exactly what was done and by whom. Like I said, breaking the law is nothing to these people if they are confident they can get away with it.

Not surprised about the about face, they had to regardless. Of course they overplayed their hand to win the pot and the fcc rightly called their bluff. If they didnt have to give tmobile the four billion I suspect they might have been hit with a fine for misreprenting the situation. (or been hired by elecion comittees). A contigency plan was undoubtedly in place and they are now running with it....saying what stockholders want to hear.

SirOmega. The up arrow did not convey enough the value of your comment imo. Excellent, insightful and well reasoned post. The quintissential reason i read comments on ars. +thank you for taking the time to write it out.

I am showing my age here, I still think of those two as BellSouth and NationsBank, scrappy Southern upstarts that devoured their better know, older, more genteel but also decadent competitors and assumed their names.

Between those 2, Bank of American delenda est.

Back to the original article

Quote:

Joshua King told Ars, who was an AT&T Wireless vice president from 2000 to 2005, and is now a VP at Avvo.

Wouldn't his stint in between those to position as director of business development at Clearwire, merit a mentioning? Avvo does not compete with AT&T, but Clearwire does.

SirOmega, great information. I know all the information is public records. But I wonder if you know if there are some nice visualization like this one on combined T-Mobile/MetroPCS holding

It would be interesting to see some thing similar for all 4 national carriers, with break down on below 1 GHz, AWS/PCS, above 2 GHz frequency holding. If they don't exist maybe someone can knock one up.(Hint, Ars)

I had to make sure I was still reading Ars. This subject of AT&T lying has not even hit 2 pages of comments. I fully expected a reverse Futurama meme with AT&T saying "Take my Spectrum" with Tmobile in its hand.

AT&T, the monster that just won't die. Its bigger now and more powerful then it was in the 1960's & 70's. Splitting it up into the Baby-Bells just forced all those business managers to learn more aggression and certainly to lie better. Capitalism at its worst. Ever remember when the telephone companies were considered public utilities?

I suppose the US Government did get one thing out of the deal, NSA gets to listen to all our calls, texts and emails, all in the name of Patriot Act security.

I'm confused by all these (attempted) spectrum purchases. My Pre 2 has an AT&T-compatible radio in it. If I stick a T-Mobile SIM in it, my phone will function, but its utility will be limited (EDGE speeds, rather than 3G). That being the case, how would owning T-Mobile's spectrum help AT&T expand its network?

And did they REALLY claim T-Mobile would be of particular benefit in rural areas? In upstate NY, T-Mobile doesn't do you much good if you stray too far from the Interstates.

it would "help" by removing the competition, thus removing the risk of investment into upgrading the service riding on the acquired spectrum. the bit they thought they were being clever about here is, the FCC is acting (at least in theory) on behalf of the market itself, where ATT and TMO are just acting on behalf of themselves. so they claim there is not enough competition to justify the expenditure, where in fact that is exactly the factor they want to remove in order to justify it:

Quote:

"To argue this, the [FCC staff report] apparently assumes a high enough level of competition exists in rural areas to compel billions of dollars in investment," wrote Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External & Legislative Affairs. "Yet the report elsewhere argues that the level of wireless competition in more populated areas of America is so fragile that the merger must be disallowed. At the very least, these conclusions show a logical inconsistency."

so the "logical inconsistency" here is really how ATT actually helped motivate the FCC into making the right decision, by pointing out the discrepancies behind their reasoning to merge, so we basically force them into admitting themselves just why they should not be consolidating their services.

jfgilbert wrote:

The system is not bad in itself. We can blame Big Business, but we have the power to make them do what we want by hitting their bottom line. If we continue to go for the cheapest product/service without asking how and why it is that way, or trying to understand what goes into it, we set ourselves up.If there was a mobile operator with ethical practices, providing good customer service, but perhaps a little less coverage or a little more expensive, would it have enough customers to survive?The same people who flock to Walmart while complaining that US jobs have been exported to China would drop this operator and rush to AT&T to save a few bucks and then complain about their terrible business practices.In a democracy, we get the government that we deserve. The free works the same way, we get to vote everyday with our money, so we get the products and services that we deserve.

the part you're missing here is just how ATT intended to circumvent the freedom of your money, by removing the cheapest product from the market, and selling it as their own. when you fail to understand how or why or what goes into it, that's when you allow them to eliminate the choices you have as a consumer. competition for their survival is exactly what enables you to have those options, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

were it not for the FCC here this merger would have taken place without any opposition, and you would continue to be oblivious as to why your fees are climbing every month, and why you don't have any other service to choose from.

this way even though we may still end up paying more, at least the price is as low as it can be.

The system is not bad in itself. We can blame Big Business, but we have the power to make them do what we want by hitting their bottom line. If we continue to go for the cheapest product/service without asking how and why it is that way, or trying to understand what goes into it, we set ourselves up.If there was a mobile operator with ethical practices, providing good customer service, but perhaps a little less coverage or a little more expensive, would it have enough customers to survive?The same people who flock to Walmart while complaining that US jobs have been exported to China would drop this operator and rush to AT&T to save a few bucks and then complain about their terrible business practices.In a democracy, we get the government that we deserve. The free works the same way, we get to vote everyday with our money, so we get the products and services that we deserve.

1) Fairly certain AT&T disn't have those 2.3GHz bands when it was persuing T-Mo. Also, T-Mo's airspace is far superior to the 2.3GHz bands, penetrating building materials several fold better and having longer range with less power.

2) even with the 2.3GHz bands, and although they can complete THAT rollout, it won't cover all their territory, and still does not solve their signal issues in dense metro areas. They STILLneed NORE airspace. LOTS more of it.

Their statement they can complete the LTE rollout is not mutuially exclisive to not needing T-Mo's airspace. It just means they can complete WHAT THEY HAVE, not what they wanted or what consumers need.

Personally, the idea of individual carriers owning ANY airspace for public use that isn;t shared by law with all other carriers in one large conglomerate airspace is insane. The convenluded number of legacy networks, intermixed technology, and incompatible bands, underutilized by some while overburdened by others, WASTES more than 60% of all of our airspace. If we just made them unify it, and instead of supporting 21 disparate networks we supported only 3 or 4, we would have much more airspace at far lower prices with less redundand coverage. Today there are 14 seperate band space/technology combos I can pick up in my house. I should have 4. A technology just being deployed, the main tech in use, the previous tech in use, and a legacy network being forcibly phased out. It should nt matter what carrier I choose or what device I have, I should be able to get on 2 of those 4 networks minimum at all times. They do this in the EU. The towers are owned by companies, as are the networks, but the airspace is owned by the people and they all have to share it, and we limit tower deployments by allowing wholesale access at federally guaranteed rates to the system to regisatered carriers. Let an independent comittee vote on what the next new technology deployed it, and any comittee members with a stake in that technology, their votes only count half. Vote counts should be based on who deployed infrastructure (the investors have a higher say than those wholesaling access), but it;s still a comittee vote so we don;t have the government, or one big company, choosing winners and losers in a cellularmarketplace.

From reading the article, it sounds like AT&T said in 2011 it didn't have enough spectrum without T-Mobile. The acquisition was turned down, so in 2012 they bought a bunch of other smaller companies for their spectrum and now they have enough to move forward with deployment.

What am I missing here? Is the lie that T-Mo was the only company capable of providing adequate spectrum?

It would be interesting to see some thing similar for all 4 national carriers, with break down on below 1 GHz, AWS/PCS, above 2 GHz frequency holding. If they don't exist maybe someone can knock one up.(Hint, Ars)

AT&T is still in need of spectrum to keep up with Verizon. Verizon has their nationwide 10+10 700MHz band for LTE, and then a near-nationwide band of 10+10 or 20+20 in AWS-1. AT&T has about 85% (on a population basis) covered in 10+10 in the 700MHz band (once Verizon sells them all those B block assets), and will likely have the entire country in WCS 2.3Ghz spectrum (10+10). Though WCS is going to be used in urban cores (microcells, metrocells) more than rural LTE deployments. So they still face a spectrum deficit in exurban and rural areas where density is really low.

One thing AT&T has that Verizon doesn't is significant downlink-only spectrum. AT&T has 5MHz nationwide, and 10MHz in CA and the tri-state area (NY/NJ/CT) in the 700MHz band, and another 2 5MHz sections in WCS. If AT&T can get carrier aggregation going where it can use that non-adjacent downlink-only spectrum to boost downloads it would give them some breathing room until 2017 or so. Verizon is also set on spectrum until about 2017. Sprint will be set on spectrum if they can get the PCS "H" block to build a full 10+10 LTE network in the PCS band as well as whatever they can get from Clearwire for urban deployments.

The only auction coming up is the 600MHz TV incentive auctions. There is also a possibility of an AWS-3 band (extending the current AWS-1 up 25MHz, so 50Mhz total) but that depends on sharing spectrum with the federal government - T-Mobile is championing this effort (and would likely use any spectrum it receives from this for even more LTE). I can see AT&T buying some 600Mhz spectrum if possible (especially if they can get a national license like Verizon did for 700MHz), and T-Mobile will likely try to get some too since they don't have any sub 1-GHz spectrum - the future of a strong carrier is a balance of 3 types of spectrum: below 1GHz (range), 1Ghz to 2.2GHz (capacity) and 2.3GHz+ (urban core overlay).

That said, data growth is slowing on a per-device basis. The total smartphone install base will continue to grow, but we're not seeing the exponential growth of more devices and higher per-device consumption - mostly due to the effects of data caps changing users behavior. But the real question I have is how many more devices will we have? "The Internet of things" has been talked about for a long time now, but will it finally arrive in this decade? Will we have 300M people and 600M "things" connected to the internet via the cellular network here in the US by 2020? AT&T and Verizon say they're working on LTE connected cars, but to consumers, until they provide a compelling reason to offer it in the car (above and beyond what using a cell phone could do) then I don't think consumers will care and wont opt for it.

Really excellent post....but did anyone else have a hard time not reading it in the voice of Doofenshmirtz after the tri-state area was mentioned?

To be fair, AT&T does need massive spectrum. Acquiring T-Mobile would have been the easiest way to do it. In Chicago, for instance, AT&T has only 1 LTE channel. Whenever I'm there I get 5Mbps max. That's more typical of HSPA+ speeds than LTE.

I think a solution could have been worked out to enable them to acquire T-Mobile and divest of certain assets.

It would be interesting to see some thing similar for all 4 national carriers, with break down on below 1 GHz, AWS/PCS, above 2 GHz frequency holding. If they don't exist maybe someone can knock one up.(Hint, Ars)

I'm confused by all these (attempted) spectrum purchases. My Pre 2 has an AT&T-compatible radio in it. If I stick a T-Mobile SIM in it, my phone will function, but its utility will be limited (EDGE speeds, rather than 3G). That being the case, how would owning T-Mobile's spectrum help AT&T expand its network?

And did they REALLY claim T-Mobile would be of particular benefit in rural areas? In upstate NY, T-Mobile doesn't do you much good if you stray too far from the Interstates.

it would "help" by removing the competition, thus removing the risk of investment into upgrading the service riding on the acquired spectrum. the bit they thought they were being clever about here is, the FCC is acting (at least in theory) on behalf of the market itself, where ATT and TMO are just acting on behalf of themselves. so they claim there is not enough competition to justify the expenditure, where in fact that is exactly the factor they want to remove in order to justify it:

Quote:

"To argue this, the [FCC staff report] apparently assumes a high enough level of competition exists in rural areas to compel billions of dollars in investment," wrote Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External & Legislative Affairs. "Yet the report elsewhere argues that the level of wireless competition in more populated areas of America is so fragile that the merger must be disallowed. At the very least, these conclusions show a logical inconsistency."

so the "logical inconsistency" here is really how ATT actually helped motivate the FCC into making the right decision, by pointing out the discrepancies behind their reasoning to merge, so we basically force them into admitting themselves just why they should not be consolidating their services.

jfgilbert wrote:

The system is not bad in itself. We can blame Big Business, but we have the power to make them do what we want by hitting their bottom line. If we continue to go for the cheapest product/service without asking how and why it is that way, or trying to understand what goes into it, we set ourselves up.If there was a mobile operator with ethical practices, providing good customer service, but perhaps a little less coverage or a little more expensive, would it have enough customers to survive?The same people who flock to Walmart while complaining that US jobs have been exported to China would drop this operator and rush to AT&T to save a few bucks and then complain about their terrible business practices.In a democracy, we get the government that we deserve. The free works the same way, we get to vote everyday with our money, so we get the products and services that we deserve.

the part you're missing here is just how ATT intended to circumvent the freedom of your money, by removing the cheapest product from the market, and selling it as their own. when you fail to understand how or why or what goes into it, that's when you allow them to eliminate the choices you have as a consumer. competition for their survival is exactly what enables you to have those options, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

were it not for the FCC here this merger would have taken place without any opposition, and you would continue to be oblivious as to why your fees are climbing every month, and why you don't have any other service to choose from.

this way even though we may still end up paying more, at least the price is as low as it can be.

On point 1: no, it;s not about removing risk of competition, it;s about acquiring bands T-Mo has in places AT&T does not. They could quickly re-issue AT&T compatible phones to t_mo users on legact bands (which would be an upgrqade for those users), then repurpose the T-Mo 2G network into 4G technology and expand their coverage. It would also give AT&T licensed 850MHz spectrum where they don;t carry a license today and allow them to switch out the rarios on over 20,000 EXISTING towers to avoid immense rollout costs in those areas and courts and HOAs blocking new tower deployments.

On Point 2, no, the logical inconsistantcy is the FCC argued AT&T was both right (in some markets) and wrong in others. AT&T's argument is in fact then validated, because they are in a position where buying T-Mo would have solved issues for them across vast landscape with ample competition which causing potential issues in limited places where competition is limited. The inconsistancy is the limited areas were allowed to outweight the greater good.

On point 3, it was clear in AT&Ts big that T-Mo would CONTINUE as an independent brand, with an independent board, and theuir existing price plans would not go away, period. No loss in compeeitive plan options, no displaced customers, only improved service and speeds and reliability, and the only thing changing is where the profits go. AT&T actuaklly said it could care less about the customers,. even if they lost money on them, because the airspace itself anhd the physuical towers and network infrastructure outweighed those losses several times over. It was also a condition of their buyout that any AT&T subscribers could switch from AT&T to T-Mo plans WITHOUT contract extensions, making those plans available WITHOUT leaving AT&T's network or changing phones. This was 100% consumer positive.

The only people hury by AT&T's merger were VZW and Sprint. How? Because AT&T would acquire 20-30K new EXISTING towers in a GSM compatible network, and could VERY quickly implement a massive LTE rollout at extremely low cost. Less than 25% of VZW's cost to do the same the that many people. That created the potentiol not that AT&T woudl raise prices and hurt consumers, but that AT&T could LOWER prices to places Sprint can;t go due to already negative income and VZW would have a hard time matching while priofiting, creating a vaccuum where consumers would want to go to AT&T in mass, eventually causing Sprint to go bankrupt and impacting VZW's funding for rollout and competition. The short term is consumers win, the long term is more competition could fail. The latter however is EASILY handled with regulation, if AT&T did get too big, simply cap profits on them as you would do with any other monopoly where competition is lacking. in the end we would have had chesaper short term prices, a better network, and faster rollouts, and in the long term we likely would have had a single-provider system with a wholesale model, making us more competitive worldwide and ending up with a government regulated wireless system we should have had 20 years ago (TV, Landlines, internet, Power, they are all regulated, why is cellular, the one areana where corporate profits are so rediculously high, so far immune to those regulations?

This is a care where protecting the idea of multiple companies, potentially VZW deemed too big to fail, is guaranteed to cost consumers more money in the long term. There is already CLEAR price collusion amung the networks unregulated against each other, and a non-unified infrastructure without a mandated wholesale model costs more than less infrastructure. the FCC guaranteed it takes more time and more money to rollout new tech, thereby guaranteeing long term higher prices for consumers, and less ability to change networks wiothout changing devices in the future. The FCC decision was a loss for consumers, a loss for choice, and a win for VZW and Sprint stockholders alone.

From reading the article, it sounds like AT&T said in 2011 it didn't have enough spectrum without T-Mobile. The acquisition was turned down, so in 2012 they bought a bunch of other smaller companies for their spectrum and now they have enough to move forward with deployment.

What am I missing here? Is the lie that T-Mo was the only company capable of providing adequate spectrum?

What you are missing is the cognitive dissonance of the Ars community with regard to "Big Business". MS is constantly trying to leverage more profits for itself at the expense of both the consumer's wallet and freedom. MS has been trying to move individuals to "subscription" models for years. They helped pioneer the EULA that wraps itself in "licensing" as opposed to an outright sale to grab more rights and powers for itself at the expense of the consumer. Apple does similar things. Both corporations protect business models that exclude competition.

AT&T does similar things making less profits and therefore taking less money from the consumer and they are EVIL. As is Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. I can already hear it, but..but..MS and Apple products deliver such a great user experience. No, no they don't. It is just that we have come to embrace the limitations they place on the consumer while simultaneously acting as if each AT&T annoyance is a war crime.

I'd assume it is because of data limits per band (e.g. you can only move so much information within each block), but how does that relate to the build out of LTE in parts that don't have it yet? Isn't the idea that they are more rural and wouldn't be competing for data in a place like NYC or San Francisco? One signal doesn't cover the entire USA unless they have a hell of an antenna.